From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sun Apr 28 2002 - 19:16:23 MDT
J. Goard wrote
> With all due respect to Mr. Sill and the many "psychological egoists" out
> there, I believe they employ a definition of "interest" which makes their
> position trivially true, but which doesn't accord with common usage.
Yes, but not only that, adhering to such usage distorts the
meanings of many other words. The egoist theory of altruism has
us believe that everyone does everything for a selfish purpose.
Consider the following dialog between A. Narasimha, a relief worker for
Save Bombay Babies Now, an organization arranging for foster care
for Indian orphans, and the asshole clerk in Chicago taking in
the donations:
the clerk: "Lookie here, an anonymous contribution for $100,000 from
some philanthropist. That should help you out!"
Narashimha: (her eyes shining in amazement) "Wonderful! I simply
cannot believe the generosity of some people. We are so
enormously grateful!"
the clerk: "Why? Don't you know that the only reason anyone does
anything is in their own self-interest, or what they
perceive to be their own self-interest? Rest assured
that the philanthropist acted only according to his or
her own desires."
narashimha: "That cannot be so! It might be the case that no one
besides the philanthropist himself or herself knows of
this immense charitable act! But even if you were right,
we at SBBN must show our sincere gratitude any way we can."
the clerk: "That's another thing. Gratitude. An outmoded concept.
Since everyone does everything in what they clearly
consider to be their own self-interest, then logically
gratitude makes no sense. Or at least it shouldn't have
any emotional content; at most, it could be an acknowledgment
of debt... to gain which is often the only reason that
any act of so-called kindness ever occurs in the first place."
So... deconstructing the usual meanings of "altruistic", "selfish", and
"self-interested" leads us also to reevaluate what "charity", "kindness",
"consideration", and "sympathy" mean.
Now when we point out that successful economies depend on the self-interest
of the participants, we are saying something substantial, something that
shouldn't be trivialized.
> This definition (roughly, that interest = motivation for action)
> is quite useful in theoretical economics, where interesting a
> priori truths can be derived from trivial axioms. In ethics,
> however, I think it just leads to a lot of talking at cross
> purposes.
Yes, and to miscommunication and confusion.
Lee Corbin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:41 MST